There are a ton of movies about to open - one of them is Exodus

Glenn ran down some of the many movies set to release and surprisingly many of them seem very promising. The big dilemma, however, is of course whether or not to attend the movie Exodus. On the one hand it’s great that Hollywood made a film centering around a key Biblical figure. On the other hand we know what Hollywood does to Biblical movies (see: Noah). Will Glenn see it?

PAT: Good morning and afternoon to you. Or evening if —

GLENN: Good morning.

PAT: Like the old Truman Show thing. Good morning and good afternoon, good evening and good night in case I don't see you. Remember that?

GLENN: Thanks for bringing that memory back. That was beautiful. I saw the Stephen Hawking movie last night.

PAT: Oh, yeah, how was that? It looks good. I'm not sure what that means.

GLENN: Really good. Really good.

PAT: It was a good movie?

GLENN: Yeah. The guy who plays Stephen Hawking is brilliant.

PAT: He looks a lot like him.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. That's not something you want people to say. You know what?

You look like Stephen Hawking. Thank you. Thank you very much.

(laughing).

JEFFY: Might be a good thing from a strip club, though, because I know Stephen used to —

GLENN: They ever.

PAT: Now, see, I didn't know that part —

GLENN: Yeah, and they handled that very delicately.

PAT: Did they?

GLENN: He's part of this. He helped with this movie. And I — doesn't necessarily make him look like a good guy. But the first part of it, the first 45 minutes, beautiful love story. Just beautiful love story. And then Stephen, you know, gets a trach and — and shortly before that he's kind of bad to his wife in a way. She has committed — you know, they said, like two years. They only have two years to live. This is 1965. Two years max.

PAT: Yeah, nobody — prior survived that for — like he has.

GLENN: Correct. So no —

PAT: Had they?

GLENN: No. He's not supposed to survive. She is a God-fearing woman. She loves him. Really loves him. And so decides, I'm going to get married anyway and I'll carry that burden for two years because I love him. She does everything. Well, they have children. And children and more children. I think they have four. Three or four. And so here she is as a mom in the '60s, in the early '70 s . He's an invalid. She's carrying him to the bathroom, she's carrying him to the bed. Everything else. She's getting him dressed every day, brushing his teeth, pushing him around.

PAT: And is she like, I thought you were going to die. What is this?

GLENN: Surprisingly —

PAT: She's not like that? Okay, good.

GLENN: So it's 1978, 1980. And she still doesn't have any help. And she's like, Stephen, I've got to have help. And —

PAT: Not from him but fire somebody.

GLENN: Hire somebody.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And he said no, we're a normal family. No, we're not a normal fame. I don't know if you know this, but I have to carry you to go poopy on the pottie.

PAT: Is that a correct quote?

GLENN: No, it's not. So he's kind of a jerk. But you understand it up to a point. And then — and then he gets this speech therapist after this heartwrenching scene with his I wife, just heartwrenching scene. And then he gets a speech that's rightist and she start reading him "Penthouse" magazine and they go all perverted. -- it's weird. It's really, really weird. And I'm a fan of Steve hocking but it doesn't make him look good. I don't think. You'll like the first part. If you see this movie, you'll like the first part, it's a beautiful love story. But you'll walk out — he's an atheist and in the end at "The Brief History of Time," this would verify the existence of God or give God his rightful place or something like that. And he has since recanted that. But she comes this and she's like, wait a minute, you believe — you're recognizing God?

PAT: Yeah, I thought he had done that.

GLENN: Yeah, he did. In brief history of time, he recognizes God. And she said, and she starts getting all teary-eyed and he says, however — and she says, you're not gonna take this moment from me, are you? And he just kind of looks at her and he says, you're welcome. And so that was a nice touching thing. But then it just kind of goes to hell in a hand basket. You're kind of like, oh, so the 72-year-old creepy dude is alone now. Okay, honey, let's go and have a good time.

PAT: One of those kind of movies.

GLENN: That —

PAT: Leaves you feeling yicky. GLENN: Yeah. He gives a great speech at the end where if you don't believe in God, what do you believe in and he gives a great speech at the end. But it's not enough to — for me it wasn't enough to make up for — I don't know, the way he treated this remarkable woman. Just a remarkable woman. The first part of it, it's worth seeing I think, because it shows the love of an amazing woman. Just an amazing woman. And you know, at the end when he's breaking up with her, she — he just — he rolls into her, kind of like, you know, this is the way of just trying to hug her. And she's kind of standing with her back to her. She's crying and he rolls into the back of her and he says -- and she turns to him and she said, how many years, and he said, two. Meaning I was only supposed to live two. And she gets down on her knees in his wheelchair and she's sobbing and she's like, I did the best I could, Stephen. I did the best I could. I mean, she's a beautiful woman. Just a wonderful, wonderful woman.

PAT: She's still alive?

GLENN: Yeah. And she's married to the guy who they finally brought in to take care of him, which they didn't have anything —

PAT: Spoiler alert. Spoiler alert.

GLENN: Nobody is going to see the Stephen hocking movie.

JEFF: I think they will.

PAT: It's gotten a lot of hype.

JEFFY: The speech therapist.

GLENN: The guy needs to get an Oscar. He well — he played him so well. And she's great in it, too. It's really a good movie and great performances. But don't expect, you know — I have —

PAT: A happy time.

GLENN: A happy feeling when you leave. At least it didn't for me and Tania. Tania was like I didn't know he was such a pervert. Like yeah, yeah.

PAT: Not good. And it's called "The Theory Of Everything."

GLENN: Everything.

PAT: There's still quite a few really big movies coming out like Exodus and Kings. Is it next week or the week after that? "Exodus, Gods and Kings" is what it's called.

GLENN: I just don't have a good feeling.

PAT: Be careful of that one.

GLENN: Don't have a good feeling about that movie.

PAT: Well, you shouldn't. We talked a little bit last week about the 11-year-old kid who plays God. Snotty 11-year-old. That's how God is presented.

GLENN: As a snotty 11-year-old kid.

PAT: British. He's also British. God wasn't British.

GLENN: Are you sure?

PAT: I'm positive.

GLENN: How are you positive?

PAT: He's American.

GLENN: He's American, okay. Because in the last Ten Commandment movie.

PAT: He has no discernible accent job he has — wait, what? He had an American accent.

PAT: Americans don't have accents. Like me, I don't have an accent.

(laughing).

PAT: It's the rest of the world that has accents.

GLENN: Exactly right.

PAT: That's for them. That's for foreigners.

(laughing).

PAT: Isn't that our attitude?

GLENN: It is, it is. So what's coming up besides God and Kings?

PAT: Next Wednesday I think "The Hobbit" opens. Are you excited about the last one here? No? Are you tired of "The Hobbit"?

GLENN: Looks good.

PAT: It does look good.

GLENN: Here's what I'm tired of. We're doing a — we're doing three movies. It's a three-book series, so three movies in a series. Of course, the last book will be split into seven and a half movies.

PAT: Yeah, that —

GLENN: I'm also sick of it.

PAT: That's right. This isn't the last one —

GLENN: No, I think this is the last one.

PAT: This is the last one. Last year was the first part.

GLENN: No, last year was the second part of the third part.

PAT: Of the third.

GLENN: Of the last book. But come on. Just end the damn thing. All right.

PAT: It's hard when you're making $500 million per movie.

GLENN: I know. Have also self-control.

PAT: It's tough.

GLENN: Peter Jackson, have self-control, please.

The Woodrow Wilson strategy to get out of Mother’s Day

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.